Bolshevik Revolution, Lenin, & Motherhood
#1
Since I didn't believe what my friend said about how many were massacred during the Bolshevik Revolution, I read: "The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia's Early Soviet Regime: Assessing the Grim Legacy of Soviet Communism" by Mark Weber.

The article quotes Winston Churchill saying "that Bolshevism is a 'worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality.'" To accomplish this "overthrow of civilization," Vladimir Lenin thus attacks the dignity of women and motherhood. Because a mother—a child's primary educator—naturally instills values in her child contrary to those of Communism, Lenin advocates everything that alienates a child from his mother:
Quote:Our demands are practical conclusions which we have drawn from the burning needs, the shameful humiliation of women [...], defenceless and without rights. We demonstrate thereby that we recognise these needs, and are sensible of the humiliation of the woman, the privileges of the man. That we hate, yes, hate everything, and will abolish everything which tortures and oppresses the woman worker, the housewife, the peasant woman [...].
[...]
It wins us the confidence of the masses of women who feel themselves exploited, enslaved, suppressed, by the domination of the man, by the power of the employer, by the whole of [...]  society.
[...]
Could there be a more damning proof of this than the calm acquiescence of men who see how women grow worn out In petty, monotonous household work, their strength and time dissipated and wasted, their minds growing narrow and stale, their hearts beating slowly, their will weakened!
[...]
The home life of the woman is a daily sacrifice to a thousand unimportant trivialities.
[...]
In law there is naturally complete equality of rights for men and women. And everywhere there is evidence of a sincere wish to put this equality into practice. We are bringing the women into the social economy, into legislation and government. All educational institutions are open to them, so that they can increase their professional and social capacities.
[...]
That will mean freedom for the woman from the old household drudgery and dependence on man. That enables her to exercise to the full her talents and her inclinations. The children are brought up under more favourable conditions than at home.
These prominent parts of Clara Zetkin's "Lenin on the Women’s Question" interview in 1920 sound uncannily like modern radical "feminism". The original, true feminists like Susan B. Anthony were pro-life; thus, they opposed the vision of Lenin et al.

What Lenin says reminds me very much about what Pope Pius XI warned about in Divini Illius Magistri in 1929 (my emphasis):
Quote:73. Nevertheless, Venerable Brethren and beloved children, We wish to call your attention in a special manner to the present-day lamentable decline in family education. The offices and professions of a transitory and earthly life, which are certainly of far less importance, are prepared for by long and careful study; whereas for the fundamental duty and obligation of educating their children, many parents have little or no preparation, immersed as they are in temporal cares. The declining influence of domestic environment is further weakened by another tendency, prevalent almost everywhere today, which, under one pretext or another, for economic reasons, or for reasons of industry, trade or politics, causes children to be more and more frequently sent away from home even in their tenderest years. And there is a country where the children are actually being torn from the bosom of the family, to be formed (or, to speak more accurately, to be deformed and depraved) in godless schools and associations, to irreligion and hatred, according to the theories of advanced socialism; and thus is renewed in a real and more terrible manner the slaughter of the Innocents.
Reply
#2
Interesting to note that capitalism has basically done the same thing, only more successfully.
Reply
#3
(01-27-2012, 04:49 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Interesting to note that capitalism has basically done the same thing, only more successfully.

Contrary to your Socialist bias, women only began entering the work force on mass in North America with the loss of monetary purchasing power and the rise of taxes, which are not capitalistic policies.  The women who who worked in factories during WWII did not stay there after the war.  They only went back in with the advent of the pill and loss of a gold standard. 
Reply
#4
(01-27-2012, 05:41 PM)PeterII Wrote:
(01-27-2012, 04:49 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Interesting to note that capitalism has basically done the same thing, only more successfully.

Contrary to your Socialist bias, women only began entering the work force on mass in North America with the loss of monetary purchasing power and the rise of taxes, which are not capitalistic policies.  The women who who worked in factories during WWII did not stay there after the war.  They only went back in with the advent of the pill and loss of a gold standard. 

Really? What planet are you from? Some were forced to go into the work place, some were coaxed in order to realize their full potential. It increased the tax base, put off having children if ever, decreased wages across the board and made women compete with men in providing for the family. You seriously blame the loss of the gold standard for women working outside the home? That is indeed a new one.

How about children in the work place before child labor laws? Was that because we were on the gold standard? Or women who worked in sweat shops around the same time and before unions?

Reply
#5
(01-27-2012, 04:49 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Interesting to note that capitalism has basically done the same thing, only more successfully.
Is it capitalism or people in a capitalist economy?

Read also "[URL=http://"http://mises.org/why_ae.asp"]Why Austrian Economics Matters[/URL]."
[URL=http://"http://mises.org/"]Mises.org[/URL]'s resources really make me want to read [URL=http://"http://mises.org/mengerbio.asp"]Carl Menger[/URL]'s [URL=http://"http://www.mises.org/etexts/menger/Mengerprinciples.pdf"]Principles of Economics[/URL] (which I linked to a freely available online version), whose "greatest merit [...] was to rediscover and take up [the] continental Catholic tradition of Spanish scholastic thought that was almost forgotten and cut short as a consequence of the black legend against Spain and the very negative influence on the history of economic thought of Adam Smith and his followers of the British Classical School." ([URL=http://"http://mises.org/about/3238"]source[/URL]). Mises still considered it the best intro to Austrian economics. From "[URL=http://"http://mises.org/austrian.asp"]What is 'Austrian Economics'?[/URL]":
Quote: The story of the Austrian School begins in the fifteenth century, when the followers of St. Thomas Aquinas, writing and teaching at the University of Salamanca in Spain, sought to explain the full range of human action and social organization.
These Late Scholastics observed the existence of economic law, inexorable forces of cause and effect that operate very much as other natural laws. Over the course of several generations, they discovered and explained the laws of supply and demand, the cause of inflation, the operation of foreign exchange rates, and the subjective nature of economic value--all reasons Joseph Schumpeter celebrated them as the first real economists.
The Late Scholastics were advocates of property rights and the freedom to contract and trade. They celebrated the contribution of business to society, while doggedly opposing taxes, price controls, and regulations that inhibited enterprise. As moral theologians, they urged governments to obey ethical strictures against theft and murder. And they lived up to Ludwig von Mises's rule: the first job of an economist is to tell governments what they cannot do.
[continued...]
Just as Galileo's physics didn't pop out of thin air; so, too, was there a very good economic theory movement before Adam Smith et al. I've always wondered what economists preceded Smith (cf. [URL=http://"http://mises.org/about/3238"]this article[/URL]).
[URL=http://"http://mises.org/literature.aspx"]Mises.org's literature page[/URL] is a very good collection of resources, too. Mises's [URL=http://"http://mises.org/resources/3250"]Human Action[/URL] and Menger's [URL=http://"http://mises.org/resources/595/Principles-of-Economics"]Principles of Economics[/URL] are freely available as nicely formatted PDFs there. Read at least the introductions of both of those. They show how superior the scholastic methodology and approach to economics is compared to the positivistic one of the Marxists et al. The methodology originates from the Spanish scholastic [URL=http://"http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=search&q=salamanca"]Salamanca school[/URL], comprised of 16th century Thomists who realized that quantity and thus mathematics has its limitations when applied to economics and can even lead to a false understanding of how an economy should run. Austrian economists focus so much on the methodology and principles of the science of economics because, as the dictum goes, "a small error in principles is a big error in conclusions." (See [URL=http://"http://mises.org/resources/4950/Economic-Science-and-the-Austrian-Method"]this book[/URL] for more on the Austrian school's methodology.)
Another interesting tidbit is that [URL=http://"http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Nicole_Oresme.aspx"]Bp. Oresme[/URL], a 14th century French physicist and economist, wrote one of the first economic texts called [URL=http://"http://mises.org/resources/3969"]De Moneta[/URL]. "[A]s Guido Hulsmann argues in [URL=http://"http://mises.org/store/Ethics-of-Money-Production-P536.aspx"]The Ethics of Money Production[/URL], Oresme was the first theorist to present a fully worked out ethics of money, one that shows the sheer immorality of government monopoly over money and the social effects of debasement."
  • The French bishop Nicole Oresme determined in 1300 that for uniformly accelerated objects, d = ½ a t², which Fr. De Soto, O.P., (b. ca. 1494) applied to free-falling objects.
  • Bishop Oresme also determined mean speed theorem of uniformly accelerated body: vavg = vf / 2.
  • Bishop Oresme posed the famous Gedankenexperiment: “I posit that the Earth is pierced clear through and that we can see through a great hole farther and farther right up to the other end where the antipodes [poles] would be if the whole of this Earth were inhabited; I say, first of all, that if we dropped a stone through this hole, it would fall and pass beyond the center of the earth, going straight on toward the other side for a certain limited distance, and that then it would turn back going beyond the center on this side of the Earth; afterward, it would fall back again, going beyond the center but not so far as before; it would go and come this way several times with a reduction of its reflex motions until finally it would come to rest as the center of the Earth....” Quoted by K. V. Magruder from Le Livre du Ciel et due Monde (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1968), translated by D. Menut, pg. 573.
  • Bishop Oresme wrote: “If air were enclosed in a moving ship, it would seem to the person situated in this air that it was not moved.” Book of the Heavens, Book II chapter 25, from Grant, A Source Book of Medieval Science, pg. 505, Harvard, 1974
Incredible! He discusses gravitation, relativity, mathematics applied to physics, economics. He also invented a notation for fractions and did theology as well!
Anyways, economics is very interesting because it even studies how science works: As a physicist with an interest in Austrian economics, [URL=http://"http://mises.org/resources/1143/Science-Technology-and-Government"]Science, Technology, and Government[/URL] by Murray N. Rothbard is the sort of book I was looking for!
These related resources are very good, too:
  • [URL=http://"http://www.cobdencentre.org/2011/01/science-by-the-free-market/"]"The Myth of Under-provision of Science by the Free Market"[/URL] by [URL=http://"http://www.cobdencentre.org/2011/01/science-by-the-free-market/"]Anita Acavalos[/URL]

  • [URL=http://"http://blog.mises.org/5439/free-market-science-vs-government-science/"]"Free-Market Science vs. Government Science"[/URL] by [URL=http://"http://blog.mises.org/author/george_reisman/"]George Reisman[/URL]
    • These two articles advocate privatized, non-government-funded science as a more efficient way of doing science. I think there is definitely a push in that direction due to [URL=http://"https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Open%20Access"]Open Access[/URL] publishing like arXiv.org [URL=http://"https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Preprint"]pre-print[/URL] services ([URL=http://"http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Aversa_A/0/1/0/all/0/1"]see my papers on there[/URL]) and Wikipedia becoming more common.

  • [URL=http://"http://mises.org/resources/3582/Against-Intellectual-Property"]Against Intellectual Property[/URL] by [URL=http://"http://mises.org/resources/3582/Against-Intellectual-Property"]Stephan Kinsella[/URL]
    • This short book argues against patents!
Definitely before at least the 16th century, what we consider plagiarism was much more prevalent. Lesser-known authors would use pseudonyms of well-published authors in order to gain recognition of their ideas. Often it worked! But the point is that "intellectual property" did not exist until very recently, and so in some ways knowledge was more open then, albeit less quickly accessible, than now. The printing press and now the internet has changed that.
Reply
#6
(01-27-2012, 08:02 PM)Adam Wayne Wrote:
(01-27-2012, 05:41 PM)PeterII Wrote:
(01-27-2012, 04:49 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Interesting to note that capitalism has basically done the same thing, only more successfully.

Contrary to your Socialist bias, women only began entering the work force on mass in North America with the loss of monetary purchasing power and the rise of taxes, which are not capitalistic policies.  The women who who worked in factories during WWII did not stay there after the war.  They only went back in with the advent of the pill and loss of a gold standard. 

Really? What planet are you from? Some were forced to go into the work place, some were coaxed in order to realize their full potential. It increased the tax base, put off having children if ever, decreased wages across the board and made women compete with men in providing for the family. You seriously blame the loss of the gold standard for women working outside the home? That is indeed a new one.

How about children in the work place before child labor laws? Was that because we were on the gold standard? Or women who worked in sweat shops around the same time and before unions?

I live on the planet where a man use to be able to get a job with a high school education and support an entire family on that one income.  That's not the case anymore.  The loss of purchasing power is directly due to poor monetary policy and increased taxes.

Women and children worked in sweat shops because it was a better alternative to subsistence farming where they worked just as hard for less.  Contrary to the Socialist bias, life wasn't beer and skittles before the industrial revolution.  Famine use to be a reality that has been eliminated in non Marxist countries at least, and that's not because of unions, but because of increased production. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)